Bill Overview
Title: To designate the mountain at Mount Rushmore National Memorial, South Dakota, as Mount Rushmore, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill designates the mountain at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota as Mount Rushmore.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People visiting or engaged with Mount Rushmore
Estimated Size: 1500000
- The bill is about designating the mountain at Mount Rushmore National Memorial as Mount Rushmore.
- Mount Rushmore is a national symbol in the United States, visited by millions of people each year.
- The primary direct impact on the population relates to official records and documents, potentially involving park authorities, local governments, and historians.
Reasoning
- This policy primarily affects records and documents and may not directly impact individuals' daily lives significantly.
- The actual impact on personal wellbeing is likely minimal given that the policy deals with administrative designations.
- The monetary budget is minor, indicating this policy's administrative nature, likely affecting park officials more than the general public.
- Mount Rushmore is a significant national symbol; thus, any formal designation changes may have symbolic importance to certain groups like historians or locals.
- A large portion of Americans may not perceive any impact unless they have regular engagement with Mount Rushmore or related activities.
Simulated Interviews
historian (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a historian, official designations matter for accuracy in my work.
- It's a good move for historical accuracy, though it doesn't affect my daily life much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
park ranger (Rapid City, South Dakota)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill seems more symbolic, but could simplify some bureaucratic processes.
- The designation will help clear any confusion officially—good for our records.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
teacher (New York, New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Official naming doesn’t really affect my teaching much.
- It's nice for accuracy, but lacks real impact on my students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
retired (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this affects me personally, honestly.
- I guess it's useful for official purposes, but I don't feel the impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
tour guide (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might help with official documents once in awhile.
- Most tourists won’t notice, but it could help us internally stay accurate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
retired (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 71 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Corrects something minor, good for the park's professional image.
- I personally won’t feel different, it's more of a piece of trivia to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
lawyer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's largely administrative, doesn’t seem to interest me much.
- This change is about management accuracy at most.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
software engineer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seems like a symbolic shift—doesn't affect me directly.
- It's about paperwork, doesn't change my view of the place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
graphic designer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cool for design accuracy but won’t alter my projects much.
- It’s a tiny tweak in the grand scheme of things.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
student (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I guess it’s important for history buffs, but doesn’t impact my life.
- The place remains the same to me, regardless of its official name.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000 (Low: $10000, High: $30000)
Year 2: $10000 (Low: $5000, High: $15000)
Year 3: $5000 (Low: $2000, High: $10000)
Year 5: $1000 (Low: $500, High: $2000)
Year 10: $500 (Low: $200, High: $1000)
Year 100: $100 (Low: $50, High: $500)
Key Considerations
- Simplifies administrative tasks and official recognition of the site's name.
- Negligible impact on the federal budget, mainly requiring updates to documents and signage.
- Historical preservation societies and educational institutions may need to update materials.